Since Bonaventure could not generate an entire treatise out of one Psalm verse, instead we find in each chapter of the Itinerarium a host of divisions and sub-divisions borrowed from earlier texts. Sometimes he borrowed divisions from his own earlier works, especially his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. But in many cases, he borrowed divisions from other works, especially those of the Victorines and St. Augustine. In Chapter 3, “Where Did Bonaventure Get His Divisions?” I trace the sources of Bonaventure’s subsidiary divisions within each section of the Itinerarium and show how tracing these divisions back to their sources can help the reader better understand what Bonaventure is trying to accomplish. I give special attention to the sources of Bonaventure’s key distinction between “vestiges,” “images,” and “likenesses” of God and the distinction between “seeing through” and “seeing in.”

The second version in the text of Part I of the Parmenides of the Third Man regress against the theory of Forms has often been read in its critical thrust as essentially identical with the original version. That interpretation fails to do sufficient justice to the regress’s focus specifically on the Form of Likeness. Such a Form has to be posited once the application of the predicate like inherent in the original–copy model of participation in Forms is itself explained on that model. Are Platonists then trapped? Part II of the dialogue supplies indications to the contrary. Like figures in many of its arguments, where it is often construed as being qualified in the same way. What readers effectively come to recognise is that like is a second-order predicate: ‘is like’ means ‘share the same first-order predicate’, not ‘participates in the Form Likeness’. Part II of the Parmenides therefore supplies materials for resisting the regress; and the presentation of likeness as a theme which we are invited to pursue through both parts alerts us to the fact that they are available, and are pertinent to the business of evaluating Parmenides’ critique of Socrates.

What did Plato mean when in Timaeus he characterised his account of the created world as an εἰκὼς μῦθος? The phrase is typically translated ‘a probable story’, ‘a likely tale’. Connotations that modern empiricist philosophy of science might attach to those expressions are misleading. Careful attention to the two terms Plato uses, and their resonances in previous Greek literature and thought, suggests instead the strikingly oxymoronic: ‘a rational/reasonable myth’. This is not, however, the reasonableness of deduction or of inference to the best explanation, but of the practical reasoning in which a supremely good designer would probably engage, assuming that he wanted to make his product as like himself as possible, but from materials with their own properties not of his making. Practical wisdom cannot aspire to the same standards of rigour as theoretical wisdom can. It can attempt only the most reasonable option given such constraints – as could any account of why that choice was made. Hence the importance of the Timaeus’ initial reminder of Socrates’ construction of a political order (witness the Republic), and its address to a company competent in politics as well as mathematics, interested no less in κόσμος as political order than in cosmology.

This chapter methodically discusses the rules of the WTO framework and disciplines relevant to energy, including several outstanding issues treated in case law. It follows the current structure of WTO agreements on goods, services, intellectual property and plurilateral agreements. On this basis, it reveals the where the WTO agreements do not optimally correspond to the realities of the energy sector (eg the goods/services divide). The chapter also highlights outstanding issues in case law and provides a summary table of energy-related disputes to date.

Chapter 6 concludes the discussion of lexis by focusing on metaphor, the linguistic and stylistic element par excellence treated under the notion of lexis. Unlike other linguistic phenomena, metaphor is not tied to a single form or genre but is listed in every enumeration of linguistic means available to the author of a poetic or rhetorical composition. This final chapter highlights the reason for the special place Aristotle assigns to metaphor by looking at it from the point of view of lexis and by examining it in the light of the excellence of lexis, as well as of mimēsis and energeia. Not only does this allow for a new approach to metaphor, but it also highlights the benefits of a three-level approach to Aristotle’s concept of lexis.

Chapter 2 begins with an outline of the four passages in which Aristotle introduces the three pillars of lexis and then moves on to two sections in which the first, i.e. ἅπασα λέξις (the entirety of lexis), is discussed. This first level of lexis includes the linguistic elements treated under the notion of lexis and Aristotle’s theory of language. These not only present Aristotle’s thoughts on language as an abstract system, but they also form the most fundamental level upon which the remainder of Aristotle’s thoughts on the concept of lexis are based.

In this chapter, we take a step back and consider a range of underlying concepts and metaphors that express something of what it means to participate, in or from another, and particularly to participate in or from God. 'Part of' language is found to have little value, while the idea of 'part in' is more promising. Notions of a limited reception from another have also been significant, as has the language of likeness. Two approaches are found to be particularly valuable: the idea of reception from a boundless source according to the distinct mode of being of the recipient, and the relation of source to recipient that is indicated by causation.

In this chapter, we take a step back and consider a range of underlying concepts and metaphors that express something of what it means to participate, in or from another, and particularly to participate in or from God. 'Part of' language is found to have little value, while the idea of 'part in' is more promising. Notions of a limited reception from another have also been significant, as has the language of likeness. Two approaches are found to be particularly valuable: the idea of reception from a boundless source according to the distinct mode of being of the recipient, and the relation of source to recipient that is indicated by causation.